More Subjects
[Name of the Writer]
[Name of Instructor]
[Subject]
[Date]
Mass Communication Law Case Brief
The case namely Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Jamal Knox is being held in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania which will be deliberated in the paper. The decision of this case was made on August 21, 2018. In the original trial, Detective Zeltner and Officer Kosko were the plaintiffs who work in precinct 5. The defendant was Jamal Knox and the co-defendant was Rashee Beasley. The essential argument of the case is that Officer Kosko was doing a routine traffic stop of the vehicle driven by the defendants, Knox and Beasley. The defendants did not stop. They fed away, crashed the vehicle and ultimately attempted to run on foot. After they were caught, the police officers found Heroin, a gun, and lots of money. Knox, the defendant, also forged his name. Both Knox and Beasley were arrested at the scene.
While charges were still being processed, the defendants Knox and Beasley recorded a threatening rap song directed towards the police. The rap song primarily highlighted the names of Detective Zeltner and Officer Kosko. Besides, it threatened them by claiming to know the address and shift timings of the officer and detective. The intimidation aimed at killing them. Furthermore, the song mentioned the previous differences between the defendants with Officer Kosko and Detective Zeltner. The most critical aspect was the noise of guns fire, police sirens and horns in the background of the threatening song. Consequently, the defendants were arrested for intimidation and terroristic threats. Officer Kosko ultimately said he was so fearful that he had to quit the police force and move. Detective Zeltner said more security had to be placed at the precinct and was also more afraid for the safety of his family.
The trial court founded them guilty for intimidating the plaintiffs because they were witnesses in the defendants’ original arrest. Since the "true threats" directed towards the plaintiff were not protected by the first amendment, the defendants were found guilty for terroristic threats. In addition, the trial court found them guilty of possessing and intending to distribute drugs. The next court rejected the defendants’ claim that his rap was a protected speech under the first amendment because it was posted online and viewable by anyone. Therefore, the defendant requested a further review in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
To discuss the essential issue, it is a contentious debate whether or not the government can control statement made generally because the public disagrees, finds it offensive or the first amendment protects it. Moreover, the other central concern is whether or not speech that is referencing unlawful actions of harm towards an individual can be criminally charged.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the trial courts findings saying that the rap lyrics were not protected by the first amendment and the defendants were guilty of intimidating and making terroristic threats towards the plaintiffs. The sufficient provision of evidence manifested the verdict. When deciding whether or not the defendants could be criminally charged, the court directed the defendants could be criminally charged for their statements. Thus, the plaintiffs possessed a strong position in this case. The legal principle involved in the case was the authority possessed by the government to control statements under critical circumstances. For instance, the lap lyrics were not aimed at expressing rather intimidating and causing harm to others. The first amendment, irrefutably, nullifies such radical expression of thoughts. The following precedent assisted the court to announce the verdict. If a certain speech is obscene, defamatory, capable of causing criminal behavior, intended to act unlawfully or has the potential to inflict unacceptable harm, the specific speech can be limited.
To conclude, the case of Watts. V. The United States was utilized by the court as a precedent to determine the interpretation of material in the rap as a ‘true threat'. Violence is not protected under the first amendment because of the fear it can incite on the plaintiffs which can interfere with their lives. Another instance was also highlighted. The court highlighted the reference Virginia v. Black, which helped determine that the Constitution allows states to criminalize threatening speech if it is directed towards someone and is meant to intimidate or terrorize. In the deliberated case, the defendants mentioned the plaintiffs by name, claimed they knew the time of their shifts, where they lived, and the defendants also had radical motives because of their previous altercation with the plaintiff. It also infers a plan for murder by the material which highlighted shooting them with guns and breaking into their homes. The sounds of sirens, guns, and horns in the background made the case worst for the defendants. The bottom line is that the plaintiff could reasonably assume that violence was bound to happen because of the guns they found on the defendants upon the original arrest.
More Subjects
Join our mailing list
© All Rights Reserved 2024